I have received the following letter from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association in response to my open letter. I'm out of the fray briefly on a writing sabbatical but, in the interest of timeliness, I will load the letter here and leave it to commenters to shake out the meaning of it all. I'll comment more fully later, but I will say I'm immediately a bit confused by the reframing of my own points in this response. I have no idea what the "other concerns" are that BCCLA has farmed from this blog, or why someone would do such a thing in response to a letter:
August 8, 2008
Dear Mr. Degen,
Re: BCCLA’s position on Bill C-61 – Copyright Reform
Thank you for your letter dated August 7, 2008 regarding our recently adopted position paper on Bill C-61. You describe your missive as an open letter that you will be publishing on your blog (www.johndegen.com). In visiting your blog, I have learned of some other concerns that you have regarding this position paper and I am pleased to have the opportunity to address those matters as well.
Firstly, I would like to clarify that the BCCLA’s Position on Bill C-61 is entirely independent of Fair Copyright For Canada (“FCFC”) and determined solely by our Board of Directors. We have no affiliation with FCFC. Additionally, although we find ourselves in agreement with many of the positions taken by Dr. Michael Geist and welcome opportunities for collaborative efforts on civil liberties matters, we have not in fact collaborated with Dr. Geist on Bill C-61.
As you know, Greg McMullen and Chris Brand wrote our position paper. They were invited to a recent Board meeting by one of our Board members and asked to give a presentation on Bill C-61. We frequently invite people with expertise in particular topics to address our Board and write papers for our consideration. It was my request that they provide a written summary of their presentation points in the form of a draft position paper to be debated by the Board. This document was approved as an Association position with various amendments from the Board. As we would like to recognize the efforts of volunteers who write position papers for us, we acknowledged Mr. McMullen and Mr. Brand as the authors of the paper and they chose to cite their affiliation with the FCFC.
For more than four decades, the BCCLA has developed positions on various pieces of proposed legislation. This is not, as you have described our efforts to date on Bill C-61, an “interruption” of important democratic processes. Indeed, it is full participation in the democratic process as we contribute to the public debate and, frequently, make submissions to Parliamentary Committees. The crucial Committee process relies entirely on interested citizens bringing their considered positions forward. We are not, as you put it, “prejudging” Bill C-61. The bill exists and the time to develop a position is now, not after the opportunity to make a submission to the Committee is lost.
As you note, our position paper deals primarily with the issue of digital rights management (DRM). You say that you feel that this matter does require clarification and that this should be an important aspect of the legislative process to come. We do not appear to disagree on this point. Our role is to make legislators and the public aware of the civil liberties concerns about DRM as it appears to be envisioned by Bill C-61. It is not clear to me that you have substantive opposition to what we have set out as our concerns. You say that the current exceptions to copyright, such as fair use, are very important civil liberties worthy of protection. In stating that we are being insufficiently attentive to authors’ rights I gather that you feel that our opposition to Bill C-61 amounts to supporting a substantial broadening of these exemptions. Rather, our position is that the bill impermissibly narrows, or makes practically impossible, these crucial exceptions.
To clarify, we have not taken a position opposing copyright nor opposing copyright reform. Rather we believe that Bill C-61 does not represent an appropriate balancing of rights and constitutes an unacceptable abrogation of privacy and expressive rights.
We have amended positions in the past and are always prepared to learn more about any given subject. If there are specific, substantive objections that you have to any of the points we make in our position paper, we would be happy to consider them.
We would welcome your posting this letter on your blog as our reply to your open letter.
Yours truly,
Micheal Vonn
Policy Director
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
cc. Greg McMullen
Chris Brand
Michael Geist
the book room: novelist, John Degen interviews other writers, and talks about copyright way too much
Showing posts with label Bill C-61. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill C-61. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Friday, August 01, 2008
holy astroturf Batman, whatever happened to disclosure!?
Professor Michael Geist, founder and administrator of the Facebook group Fair Copyright for Canada, a consumer advocacy lobby opposed to the new federal copyright reform legislation, reports today on his blog that the BC Civil Liberties Association "has adopted a position paper on C-61, warning of its effects on freedom of speech and privacy."
Geist, a noted academic, fails to mention what you only find out when you reach the end of the 5-page position paper, which is that it was written by "Fair Copyright for Canada: Vancouver Chapter."
Dude (sad shaking of the head).
This copyfight just gets deeper and deeper into the artificial muck beneath the grassroots field turf, doesn't it?
The paper itself is not entirely inaccurate, though it could use a serious copy edit (several references to the United Sates lead a parade of grammatical issues). On the other hand, it is one-sided in its strong focus on user rights over the rights of professional creators and copyright holders -- but I've become kind of accustomed to that being the initial stance for anyone new to the discussion. The four conclusions and recommendations the BCCLA have "adopted" start with the statement: "In its current form Bill C-61 is fatally flawed..." I don't even necessarily disagree with the rest of the conclusions or recommendations in the paper. I think they are good, debatable points that should be addressed in the committee process leading to the amendment and passing (or not passing) of Bill C-61.
I think the BCCLA does outstanding and necessary legal work. Clearly, though, they need to sharpen up their advocacy adoption policies. I consider my limited rights of ownership and control over my own personal creative works to be very important civil liberties. I would expect an organization like BCCLA to take them into consideration before adopting policy that ignores them.
Geist, a noted academic, fails to mention what you only find out when you reach the end of the 5-page position paper, which is that it was written by "Fair Copyright for Canada: Vancouver Chapter."
Dude (sad shaking of the head).
This copyfight just gets deeper and deeper into the artificial muck beneath the grassroots field turf, doesn't it?
The paper itself is not entirely inaccurate, though it could use a serious copy edit (several references to the United Sates lead a parade of grammatical issues). On the other hand, it is one-sided in its strong focus on user rights over the rights of professional creators and copyright holders -- but I've become kind of accustomed to that being the initial stance for anyone new to the discussion. The four conclusions and recommendations the BCCLA have "adopted" start with the statement: "In its current form Bill C-61 is fatally flawed..." I don't even necessarily disagree with the rest of the conclusions or recommendations in the paper. I think they are good, debatable points that should be addressed in the committee process leading to the amendment and passing (or not passing) of Bill C-61.
I think the BCCLA does outstanding and necessary legal work. Clearly, though, they need to sharpen up their advocacy adoption policies. I consider my limited rights of ownership and control over my own personal creative works to be very important civil liberties. I would expect an organization like BCCLA to take them into consideration before adopting policy that ignores them.
Friday, June 27, 2008
reason, despite differences of opinion
Thanks to one of the evil emissaries of American imperialism for calling my attention to this op-ed by Mike Warkentin in Winnipeg's Uptown magazine. Those emissaries... so helpful.
I'll call your attention first to this quote from Mark:
"I, too, hope Bill C-61 dies a quick death and is replaced by something less likely to be abused by corporations..."
because, obviously, here is where Mark and I part ways. I'm just not sure killing legislation is the path to better laws. I'm hoping for vibrant discussion and a healthy amendment process -- you know, governing. But I don't fault Mark at all for his opinion, which is intelligently and wittily expressed; I simply disagree with it.
Where Mark and I walk the same track is outlined in the rest of his article -- specifically in his dismay about the loud and emotional protest surrounding this bill. Like so:
"While I agree that Bill C-61 is a dud, I'm amazed that average Canadians are currently calling for changes in government with French Revolution language simply because someone might stop them from jogging to the new Madonna album.
Really? That's what we're worried about in Canada? That's our greatest challenge as a nation?
I'd suggest Canada has bigger problems that would benefit from a little activism and public outrage, but perhaps dead soldiers in Afghanistan aren't as important as that new JT track. Maybe concerns about greenhouse-gas emissions should take a seat behind the guy watching a ripped episode of Family Guy on a flight to Toronto. And maybe our Aboriginal issues just don't matter so long as we can use YouTube to watch scenes of Adam Beach on Law and Order: SVU.
Call me a cynic, but I think it's a sad sign of the times that some truly momentous legislation goes unchallenged while citizens threaten to revolt on Facebook over DVDs."
And yes, I'm just going to go ahead and take credit for the French Revolution meme that appears in the above quote. I took a lot of heat over my description of Dr. Geist as a red-sashed revolutionary leading his people to the barricades (He's calling our leader a pirate! Keelhaul him!). I'm glad to see, at least, that somebody got the reference.
I'll call your attention first to this quote from Mark:
"I, too, hope Bill C-61 dies a quick death and is replaced by something less likely to be abused by corporations..."
because, obviously, here is where Mark and I part ways. I'm just not sure killing legislation is the path to better laws. I'm hoping for vibrant discussion and a healthy amendment process -- you know, governing. But I don't fault Mark at all for his opinion, which is intelligently and wittily expressed; I simply disagree with it.
Where Mark and I walk the same track is outlined in the rest of his article -- specifically in his dismay about the loud and emotional protest surrounding this bill. Like so:
"While I agree that Bill C-61 is a dud, I'm amazed that average Canadians are currently calling for changes in government with French Revolution language simply because someone might stop them from jogging to the new Madonna album.
Really? That's what we're worried about in Canada? That's our greatest challenge as a nation?
I'd suggest Canada has bigger problems that would benefit from a little activism and public outrage, but perhaps dead soldiers in Afghanistan aren't as important as that new JT track. Maybe concerns about greenhouse-gas emissions should take a seat behind the guy watching a ripped episode of Family Guy on a flight to Toronto. And maybe our Aboriginal issues just don't matter so long as we can use YouTube to watch scenes of Adam Beach on Law and Order: SVU.
Call me a cynic, but I think it's a sad sign of the times that some truly momentous legislation goes unchallenged while citizens threaten to revolt on Facebook over DVDs."
And yes, I'm just going to go ahead and take credit for the French Revolution meme that appears in the above quote. I took a lot of heat over my description of Dr. Geist as a red-sashed revolutionary leading his people to the barricades (He's calling our leader a pirate! Keelhaul him!). I'm glad to see, at least, that somebody got the reference.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
underground films
The Film Studies Association of Canada has released a long statement critical of C-61 in general, and specifically the limitations placed on an educational exception within it. Not surprisingly, much of the criticism centres on the digital lock protections sworn enemies of the bill have been very quick to condemn.
I think we all want to sympathize with our nation's educators. I know I just spent a good part of my morning thanking the kindergarten teachers at my kids' school for all their hard work this past year. But, it is hard for me to have sympathy for this part of the FSAC statement:
... because copyright law in Canada does not allow for educational fair use, [film production and collection companies] sell blanket site licenses to Canadian universities, basically making money through a provision in the law. This creates an unnecessary financial expense for universities. It is also a time waster for A-V libraries, which have to compile reports on films screened in classes for the two companies. Finally, this vestige of the pre-video era has driven many educators ‘underground,’ as instructors show DVDs or clips from DVDs that they own for educational purposes but do not declare the screening. New copyright legislation should acknowledge and reflect current conditions, practices and educational needs, and provide educators and scholars with less fettered access to copyrighted material, recognizing the right to screen legitimately procured material within educational contexts without having to pay additional fees for each use.
It seems to me FSAC is asking for consideration of all the difficulties film studies programs must go through to show the very films that are the lifeblood of their courses, while disregarding the economic realities of the companies whose work they depend on, and in fact the financial realities of their very institutions.
Private copies of films have always been sold with private viewing restriction agreements attached, have they not? It has always been necessary, has it not, to obtain an additional license for any sort of extended public viewing? And is the rationale behind this practice particularly unsound? Copyright adheres to the text of the film, and these educators are certainly familiar with the difference between the text and the media it comes on. They're not teaching DVD studies, are they?
Film studies courses in Canada are part of a paid educational system that counts its budget in the billions. While I think we would all love it if our kids, and their parents, could attend university for free, the reality is ever increasing student debt loads. Everyone involved in delivering education to Canada's students is paid fairly for their work, product or service. Why is it suddenly wrong that the film companies providing film curriculum materials are also fairly paid? Each curriculum showing of a film is a paid showing. That is the reason for educational licenses for the use of copyright protected material-- and not just for films.
What exactly constitutes an unnecessary financial expense for universities? According to the FSAC statement, any expense that can either be wished away by importing US style fair use, or can simply be avoided by going underground and ignoring the license requirements. Oh, also expenses of inconvenience, like the necessity to keep good records. FSAC's admission and almost tacit approval of prof's breaking license agreements is a sad -- very sad -- statement about the commitment of its members to their subject matter. Films are incredibly expensive to produce, and the many artists involved are some of the great interpreters of our culture, the majority of whom are not from Hollywood.
It's too bad, because the statement makes some good points about difficulties in fair dealing for educators -- film quoting for instance - that could open up a truly fruitful dialogue about the digital lock protections, and potential amendments to C-61 for licensed educational use. But by taking the standard educational licensing is bad for education line, I think they do their position, and Canada's artists, a terrible disservice.
I think we all want to sympathize with our nation's educators. I know I just spent a good part of my morning thanking the kindergarten teachers at my kids' school for all their hard work this past year. But, it is hard for me to have sympathy for this part of the FSAC statement:
... because copyright law in Canada does not allow for educational fair use, [film production and collection companies] sell blanket site licenses to Canadian universities, basically making money through a provision in the law. This creates an unnecessary financial expense for universities. It is also a time waster for A-V libraries, which have to compile reports on films screened in classes for the two companies. Finally, this vestige of the pre-video era has driven many educators ‘underground,’ as instructors show DVDs or clips from DVDs that they own for educational purposes but do not declare the screening. New copyright legislation should acknowledge and reflect current conditions, practices and educational needs, and provide educators and scholars with less fettered access to copyrighted material, recognizing the right to screen legitimately procured material within educational contexts without having to pay additional fees for each use.
It seems to me FSAC is asking for consideration of all the difficulties film studies programs must go through to show the very films that are the lifeblood of their courses, while disregarding the economic realities of the companies whose work they depend on, and in fact the financial realities of their very institutions.
Private copies of films have always been sold with private viewing restriction agreements attached, have they not? It has always been necessary, has it not, to obtain an additional license for any sort of extended public viewing? And is the rationale behind this practice particularly unsound? Copyright adheres to the text of the film, and these educators are certainly familiar with the difference between the text and the media it comes on. They're not teaching DVD studies, are they?
Film studies courses in Canada are part of a paid educational system that counts its budget in the billions. While I think we would all love it if our kids, and their parents, could attend university for free, the reality is ever increasing student debt loads. Everyone involved in delivering education to Canada's students is paid fairly for their work, product or service. Why is it suddenly wrong that the film companies providing film curriculum materials are also fairly paid? Each curriculum showing of a film is a paid showing. That is the reason for educational licenses for the use of copyright protected material-- and not just for films.
What exactly constitutes an unnecessary financial expense for universities? According to the FSAC statement, any expense that can either be wished away by importing US style fair use, or can simply be avoided by going underground and ignoring the license requirements. Oh, also expenses of inconvenience, like the necessity to keep good records. FSAC's admission and almost tacit approval of prof's breaking license agreements is a sad -- very sad -- statement about the commitment of its members to their subject matter. Films are incredibly expensive to produce, and the many artists involved are some of the great interpreters of our culture, the majority of whom are not from Hollywood.
It's too bad, because the statement makes some good points about difficulties in fair dealing for educators -- film quoting for instance - that could open up a truly fruitful dialogue about the digital lock protections, and potential amendments to C-61 for licensed educational use. But by taking the standard educational licensing is bad for education line, I think they do their position, and Canada's artists, a terrible disservice.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
geeky reason
One of the unfortunate truisms of the ongoing debate over C-61, the federal government's legislative attempt to reform the Copyright Act to better reflect digital practice and the need for strong creator copyright protection, is that the, ahem, geekier elements of the population are lining up beneath the protest flag of unregulated consumerism being flown by Michael Geist and a number of other freedom fighters against new American imperialism. The intent of these groups, I think, can be summed up by one of the organizing URLs -- KillBillC61.ca
See that's just super extra special geeky because not only is it a call for immediate action to undermine and destroy tabled Canadian legislation (as opposed to debating and amending it), but it side-references the super-hot American actress Uma Thurman. I guess the hidden message there is that if C-61 passes, we will not be allowed to carry films featuring Uma in her yellow motorcycle suit on our iPhones.
Since I've been casually collecting examples of reasoned thinking and opinion around C-61, I thought I should probably show some from folks with a little geek in them, to prove not everyone who has seen the guts of a computer is terrified. This is from a blog run by someone named Xenon, who describes himself in his online profile as an advance scout for the invasion fleet from the planet Neptune that is scheduled to arrive in 2009. I'm just not sure you get geekier than that.
Some thoughts on Bill C-61
Xenon expresses the same kind of confusion I do about the over-the-top misinterpretations of the bill and its implications, and he frankly does a better job of it. Here's a favorite quote in which he chides Catherine Ford of the Calgary Herald for her fear-based and somewhat uninformed opinion piece against the Bill (Copyright Law Would Turn Millions Into Criminals):
a newspaper column by Catherine Ford of the Calgary Herald noted the following:
"There are at least 400 movies and an uncountable number of television shows on about 200 VHS tapes stored in my den. Should the amendment to Canada's copyright law pass without change, I will apparently be branded a thief."
Um.... Catherine, under the current law, you're *already* a thief. Bill C-61 just clarifies some of the murkiness. But unless someone is making copies of their archived programs and selling them, they have little to worry about. The police will be after pirates who go into the illegal-copying business wholesale.
Xenon, representative of our future Neptunian overlords, ends his piece by saying:
It's not the law yet, and there may be changes or amendments before it passes. Until then... get a grip, people.
I welcome his reasonable and logical people.
See that's just super extra special geeky because not only is it a call for immediate action to undermine and destroy tabled Canadian legislation (as opposed to debating and amending it), but it side-references the super-hot American actress Uma Thurman. I guess the hidden message there is that if C-61 passes, we will not be allowed to carry films featuring Uma in her yellow motorcycle suit on our iPhones.
Since I've been casually collecting examples of reasoned thinking and opinion around C-61, I thought I should probably show some from folks with a little geek in them, to prove not everyone who has seen the guts of a computer is terrified. This is from a blog run by someone named Xenon, who describes himself in his online profile as an advance scout for the invasion fleet from the planet Neptune that is scheduled to arrive in 2009. I'm just not sure you get geekier than that.
Some thoughts on Bill C-61
Xenon expresses the same kind of confusion I do about the over-the-top misinterpretations of the bill and its implications, and he frankly does a better job of it. Here's a favorite quote in which he chides Catherine Ford of the Calgary Herald for her fear-based and somewhat uninformed opinion piece against the Bill (Copyright Law Would Turn Millions Into Criminals):
a newspaper column by Catherine Ford of the Calgary Herald noted the following:
"There are at least 400 movies and an uncountable number of television shows on about 200 VHS tapes stored in my den. Should the amendment to Canada's copyright law pass without change, I will apparently be branded a thief."
Um.... Catherine, under the current law, you're *already* a thief. Bill C-61 just clarifies some of the murkiness. But unless someone is making copies of their archived programs and selling them, they have little to worry about. The police will be after pirates who go into the illegal-copying business wholesale.
Xenon, representative of our future Neptunian overlords, ends his piece by saying:
It's not the law yet, and there may be changes or amendments before it passes. Until then... get a grip, people.
I welcome his reasonable and logical people.
Monday, June 23, 2008
the advance of reason
Many folks sent me this link today -- thanks to all, especially Sandy, who was first. Sandy, you win a beer.
This article by Simon Doyle in the Hill Times shows how those most invested in copyright reform are being cautious and judicious, and taking their time to study Bill C-61 before re-engaging with government to express their likes and dislikes, and to suggest potential amendments.
It's a lot less exciting than endless speculation on our apparent rapid descent into fascism, but it's so damn Canadian it fills me with pride. I particularly like how consumer advocates are included under the umbrella label, "lobby groups." How can this term be a stand-in for "evil emissaries" if it applies to everyone?
And I hope regular readers of this blog have noticed the appearance of a new feature. I've joined iCopyright, a new copyright tagging service promoted in Canada by the good people at Access Copyright. It's still being tested, and is in early stages, but it does look to be a seamless and simple system for all involved in the use and commerce of online intellectual property -- certainly the written kind. Gone is the excuse, "but there was no indication that I couldn't just use it for my own purposes." I mean, that excuse was never valid, but with iCopyright's clickable licensing interface, respect for online intellectual property has never been easier.
![[Get Copyright Permissions]](http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.gif)
Copyright 2008, John Degen. To reproduce or distribute, visit: johndegen.icopyright.com
This article by Simon Doyle in the Hill Times shows how those most invested in copyright reform are being cautious and judicious, and taking their time to study Bill C-61 before re-engaging with government to express their likes and dislikes, and to suggest potential amendments.
It's a lot less exciting than endless speculation on our apparent rapid descent into fascism, but it's so damn Canadian it fills me with pride. I particularly like how consumer advocates are included under the umbrella label, "lobby groups." How can this term be a stand-in for "evil emissaries" if it applies to everyone?
And I hope regular readers of this blog have noticed the appearance of a new feature. I've joined iCopyright, a new copyright tagging service promoted in Canada by the good people at Access Copyright. It's still being tested, and is in early stages, but it does look to be a seamless and simple system for all involved in the use and commerce of online intellectual property -- certainly the written kind. Gone is the excuse, "but there was no indication that I couldn't just use it for my own purposes." I mean, that excuse was never valid, but with iCopyright's clickable licensing interface, respect for online intellectual property has never been easier.
Copyright 2008, John Degen. To reproduce or distribute, visit: johndegen.icopyright.com
Friday, June 20, 2008
yet more reason
Dare I say, a blossoming of reason on this final day of spring?
Smart arts guy Vit Wagner talks to some book publishers about Bill C-61, and no-one mentions truncheons or jackboots.
Say, that's two reasonable articles about C-61 in the Star. Doesn't Michael Geist write for the Star? Man, he's being posterized by his own team! (NBA reference).
Smart arts guy Vit Wagner talks to some book publishers about Bill C-61, and no-one mentions truncheons or jackboots.
Say, that's two reasonable articles about C-61 in the Star. Doesn't Michael Geist write for the Star? Man, he's being posterized by his own team! (NBA reference).
Thursday, June 19, 2008
a welcome voice of reason
You can see by the comment stream for the posting below this one (145 comments and counting) that since the introduction of the copyright reform Bill C-61, opinions have not drawn much closer together on this topic. Discussion is good and necessary, though I often despair that so much of it is so radicalized and skewed.
Thanks then to Giuseppina D'Agostino, an assistant professor at Osgoode Hall Law School for her reasoned and balanced response to C-61, published today in the Toronto Star. Read the full op-ed at the link above, and here are some highlights I'm fond of:
Canadians should welcome C-61 as an opportunity to engage in a fuller and more informed debate, something that of late has been absent.
A range of stakeholders should come to the table in good faith and spell out clear guidelines, as signalled already by a key 2004 Supreme Court decision on photocopying practices. Avoid litigation. Encourage best practice.
...We need to think beyond our iPods and sound bites. Our current copyright framework is not working. We need to fix it.
And for those who worry that any words of welcome for C-61 indicate little more than acquiescence to corporate (American) puppet masters, I have consulted with Ms. D'Agostino a number of times, and never noticed any strings attached.
Thanks then to Giuseppina D'Agostino, an assistant professor at Osgoode Hall Law School for her reasoned and balanced response to C-61, published today in the Toronto Star. Read the full op-ed at the link above, and here are some highlights I'm fond of:
Canadians should welcome C-61 as an opportunity to engage in a fuller and more informed debate, something that of late has been absent.
A range of stakeholders should come to the table in good faith and spell out clear guidelines, as signalled already by a key 2004 Supreme Court decision on photocopying practices. Avoid litigation. Encourage best practice.
...We need to think beyond our iPods and sound bites. Our current copyright framework is not working. We need to fix it.
And for those who worry that any words of welcome for C-61 indicate little more than acquiescence to corporate (American) puppet masters, I have consulted with Ms. D'Agostino a number of times, and never noticed any strings attached.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
market me this
Negative reaction to the introduction of Bill C-61 has been a fascinating exercise in hyperbole, panic and outright paranoia. Check out this posting on Michael Geist's blog for links, mostly to those folks agreeing with him, but not always.
I've been reading comment streams endlessly, and it amazes me how completely anti-Americanism has become the central focus of this issue. Despite a decade-long process involving endless public discussion between Canadians who genuinely disagree on the policy directions here -- in straight numbers you have the now close to 50,000 consumers on Geist's Facebook group versus over 100,000 professional creators and many others whose livelihoods depend on strong intellectual property protections. And let me qualify my "versus."
Anyone willing to dig into the heart of this discussion will soon see that these are not two bristling camps separated by a wide moat filled with alligators. The actual discussions and disagreements are complex, detailed and unpredictable, with folks moving back and forth between the two territories as though they were separated only by a friendly and cooperative border -- like, for instance, the border between Canada and the US. I am one of Geist's 50,000 and I regularly disagree with him, as I do right now.
Yet the leaders of the protest side of the discussion continue to sell their argument with the rhetoric of comic-book style revolution and resistance, which of course feeds the comments streams and heightens the paranoia. I suppose one can't resist evil without first casting someone in the role of evil-doer. Yeah, you see where I'm going with this. Aren't we all just a little bit tired of the encouragement to make our policy decisions based on fear? For all the Bush- and Harper-bashing going on in this debate right now, the anti-C-61ers actually remind me most strongly of kool-aid drinking neocons bent on saving the world from nuance.
I'll end this posting with a question -- a genuine, non-partisan musing on where we are and where we might go:
Bill C-61 has a lot to say about digital locks and their circumvention. There is a whole segment of society -- the open access folks -- who think digital locks are the way of the past, who wish we could all just get along without having to lock our stuff up all the time. More often than not, I find myself hanging out with the free access folks -- if you haven't downloaded my freely accessible novel yet, please do so here -- because I can see that a trend toward mutual respect between creator and consumer is making digital locks unnecessary.
My response to laws protecting locks is to think "Okay, fair enough -- but I probably just won't buy locked stuff. Either that, or I will demand that the value I get from the product is greater than the inconvenience of the lock." I make free consumer decisions about these kinds of things and, more and more, so do a lot of folks. Here's the question -- if the market is encouraging the voluntary removal of unnecessary locks, then what difference does it make if we have a law protecting necessary locks?
Please try to answer the question without using the term "police state."
I've been reading comment streams endlessly, and it amazes me how completely anti-Americanism has become the central focus of this issue. Despite a decade-long process involving endless public discussion between Canadians who genuinely disagree on the policy directions here -- in straight numbers you have the now close to 50,000 consumers on Geist's Facebook group versus over 100,000 professional creators and many others whose livelihoods depend on strong intellectual property protections. And let me qualify my "versus."
Anyone willing to dig into the heart of this discussion will soon see that these are not two bristling camps separated by a wide moat filled with alligators. The actual discussions and disagreements are complex, detailed and unpredictable, with folks moving back and forth between the two territories as though they were separated only by a friendly and cooperative border -- like, for instance, the border between Canada and the US. I am one of Geist's 50,000 and I regularly disagree with him, as I do right now.
Yet the leaders of the protest side of the discussion continue to sell their argument with the rhetoric of comic-book style revolution and resistance, which of course feeds the comments streams and heightens the paranoia. I suppose one can't resist evil without first casting someone in the role of evil-doer. Yeah, you see where I'm going with this. Aren't we all just a little bit tired of the encouragement to make our policy decisions based on fear? For all the Bush- and Harper-bashing going on in this debate right now, the anti-C-61ers actually remind me most strongly of kool-aid drinking neocons bent on saving the world from nuance.
I'll end this posting with a question -- a genuine, non-partisan musing on where we are and where we might go:
Bill C-61 has a lot to say about digital locks and their circumvention. There is a whole segment of society -- the open access folks -- who think digital locks are the way of the past, who wish we could all just get along without having to lock our stuff up all the time. More often than not, I find myself hanging out with the free access folks -- if you haven't downloaded my freely accessible novel yet, please do so here -- because I can see that a trend toward mutual respect between creator and consumer is making digital locks unnecessary.
My response to laws protecting locks is to think "Okay, fair enough -- but I probably just won't buy locked stuff. Either that, or I will demand that the value I get from the product is greater than the inconvenience of the lock." I make free consumer decisions about these kinds of things and, more and more, so do a lot of folks. Here's the question -- if the market is encouraging the voluntary removal of unnecessary locks, then what difference does it make if we have a law protecting necessary locks?
Please try to answer the question without using the term "police state."
Saturday, June 14, 2008
book futures
I spent Friday at BookExpo in Toronto, attending Another Country, the book summit put on by Humber College and the Book and Periodical Council. As expected, the day was filled with fascinating talk about the future of the book trade. Richard Florida, he of The Rise of the Creative Class and more recently Who’s Your City, opened the event with a keynote address covering the range of his socio-economic thought and loosely following an autobiographical narrative line that brought him from Newark, New Jersey to Toronto; from a young hippy with a guitar to the slick public intellectual he is today.
Florida’s thoughts on how the future economy will be populated by those companies that most successfully encourage the creative and innovative thinking of the knowledge worker had me wondering if the future economy has a place for big media, which seems in fact to be running down a completely different path – pushing the most intelligent and creative knowledge workers away from it with ridiculous contract demands and terrible treatment. If one buys Florida’s vision of where the economy is going (and I do), can huge, concentrated media afford to alienate the best and the brightest, and replace them with a class of compliant drones?
I was at the summit in my official capacity as Chair of the BPC, so I had some hosting duties to perform. I introduced two fascinating seminar sessions:
Marketing to Youth, with Mike D’Abramo of Youthography, the Toronto kid-focused ad and stat agency. Mike is the Cary Grant character from North by Northwest if he was played instead by a young John Belushi. In preparation for his session, he and I had an in-depth talk about what’s wrong with the Italian national soccer team, and why it is that the Netherlands might just win Euro 2008.
I’ve heard Mike’s youth marketing talk before. He stresses the point that the youth of today have little to no patience for anything that restricts their technological freedom. If your product can’t do what they want, either they force it to do what they want, or they just won’t buy it. I respect Mike’s research, but that point seems a bit simplistic to me when I remove it from a marketing context. It may apply to considerations of product development, but I’m not sure our society is best served by giving in to every fickle whim of an over-active youth marketplace.
My other session was Writer and Reader Collaboration, with Ben Vershbow, a terrific presenter from The Institute for the Future of the Book, a small think tank in Brooklyn, New York dedicated to speculation and experimentation with books as we grow into the digital age.
Ben is in his late twenties, and so presumably has little patience for technical restrictions, yet he showed a remarkable loyalty to the book as object and the concept of made-text even as he dazzled us with descriptions of some of the Institute’s fascinating projects, such as the creation of Gamer Theory, a collaboratively produced, textually restrictive, single-author book that was shaped by a constant comment stream on the Internet as each chapter was written. This session had me wondering about the possibilities for fiction writing in such an environment, though I (and Ben) doubt there’s much market for collaboratively produced traditional fiction (science fiction? – anything goes). On the other hand, the applications used to create Gamer Theory might find a happy home in large online book clubs, for interactive dissection and analysis of a book, line by line.
Of course, the day was also filled with talk of the new Copyright Bill. Lawyer Grace Westcott advised a cautious welcome for the legislation despite the doom and gloom predictions from the copyleft corner. Vershbow, who (one might expect) leans a little to the left on that topic, had this to say (paraphrased): While I understand and respect the need for authors and publishers to be able to control and protect their economic product, the new bill makes copyright seem like an economic model based on constant surveillance, which is kind of sad.
My own interpretation goes in a different direction. I think intellectual property is an economic model based on a constant request for respect, a golden rule interaction, and maybe this gets to the heart of my discomfort with the youth “market” as well. If Florida is right, and the engine of our economy is going to run on creativity for the next while, should we be treating that creativity the way we’ve treated oil and gas for the last century and a bit – with reckless disregard and a voracious market demand for cheapness? What’s wrong with a little conservationalist thinking around creativity?
Thursday, June 12, 2008
the name's Bill... Copyright Bill
Sitting on the Order Paper for Parliament this morning is this intriguing little item:
An Act to amend the Copyright Act (downloadable PDF -- free!)
The writing and publishing industry, and indeed all of Canada's cultural workers are probably tuned to CPAC this morning to witness this legislation's long awaited arrival in the House.
Writers in this country have been looking to government to address digital copyright issues for many years. While we've been waiting for reform of the Copyright Act, Canada's professional cultural workers have seen a steady erosion of our rights and livelihoods.
Chances are I won't agree with everything in the bill, but I congratulate this government for doing the work to bring it to Parliament. This discussion needs to
happen in the country's highest chambers, and Canada's legislators need to do the necessary work to understand copyright in all its subtlety and complexity. I look forward to a vigorous debate.
I'm very hopeful the House, in its wisdom, can find a balance that suits creators, publishers, and the broader public interest.
Of course, before anyone has even seen the new bill, it has already been negatively branded by those determined to oppose any focus on shoring up the rights of traditional copyright stakeholders. Anti-corporatism, anti-Conservatism and anti-Americanism seem to be the flags flown most often over there -- check out this comic book for the kind of balanced and nuanced argumentation we can expect to see more of once the bill comes down. Strangely, traditional professional creators interested in seeing due Parliamentary process applied to the question of copyright reform appear as neither the Fantastic Freedom of Expression Fighters, nor the Evil Emissaries of American Interests. Then again, I guess there aren't that many comics out there in which Superman and Spiderman sit down at a committee table to have a nuanced policy discussion. I would so buy one, though.
UPDATE: Here's the official government press release. And check out the "fact sheets" as well. And, of course, if you didn't get it up top there, here's Bill C-61.
How geeky are we all right now?
An Act to amend the Copyright Act (downloadable PDF -- free!)
The writing and publishing industry, and indeed all of Canada's cultural workers are probably tuned to CPAC this morning to witness this legislation's long awaited arrival in the House.
Writers in this country have been looking to government to address digital copyright issues for many years. While we've been waiting for reform of the Copyright Act, Canada's professional cultural workers have seen a steady erosion of our rights and livelihoods.
Chances are I won't agree with everything in the bill, but I congratulate this government for doing the work to bring it to Parliament. This discussion needs to
happen in the country's highest chambers, and Canada's legislators need to do the necessary work to understand copyright in all its subtlety and complexity. I look forward to a vigorous debate.
I'm very hopeful the House, in its wisdom, can find a balance that suits creators, publishers, and the broader public interest.
Of course, before anyone has even seen the new bill, it has already been negatively branded by those determined to oppose any focus on shoring up the rights of traditional copyright stakeholders. Anti-corporatism, anti-Conservatism and anti-Americanism seem to be the flags flown most often over there -- check out this comic book for the kind of balanced and nuanced argumentation we can expect to see more of once the bill comes down. Strangely, traditional professional creators interested in seeing due Parliamentary process applied to the question of copyright reform appear as neither the Fantastic Freedom of Expression Fighters, nor the Evil Emissaries of American Interests. Then again, I guess there aren't that many comics out there in which Superman and Spiderman sit down at a committee table to have a nuanced policy discussion. I would so buy one, though.
UPDATE: Here's the official government press release. And check out the "fact sheets" as well. And, of course, if you didn't get it up top there, here's Bill C-61.
How geeky are we all right now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)